PC 10-08-84CITY' OF' CUPER'rINO, STATE OF CAI,IFOHN!A 10300 Torre Avenue~Cupertino,,ca.95014.
Telephon~: (408) 252-4505
MINUTES OF '.L'HE · REGULAR MEETYNG OF THE PLANNING COMM!SS:tON
HELD ON OCTOBER 8,, 19811
Cha1rp~rson Claudy calleid the Meeting t;o order at 7 :.30 p .m. ir the Council Chambers, City Hall.
SALUTE ''t10 'l'HE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Conuniss:tonera Present: Com. Miackemr.;ifit
Staff Present:
APPROVAL OF MINUTEJ
Corn. Ada.ms 1
Com. Szabo Com. S'o:rensen n Cha1rpersor. Claudy
Dir.of Planning and D~vel. Sisk Assistant Planning Director Cowan City Attorney Kilian Assistant City Engineer Wlii tten
MOTION: Com. Szabo, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 24,, 1984 SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 2-0 (Corns. Adams, McKinz:1e and Sorenson abstaining)
POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: ITEM #5 -APPLICATION 17-U-84 -APPLICANT ~EQUESTS CONTINUANCE.
MOTION: Com. Adams, that the Application 17-U-74 be postponed unttl the Meetlng of October 22r1d. SECOND: Com. Szabo VOTE: Passed 5-0
KRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Several p1~Ce$ of correspondence regarding Item #7, to be addressed with Item #7.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
CONSENT CA~ENDAR
1. Apr-liaation l61iJTM-83 of DZIDRA SI"'.VEH; Request for Extension of Tentative Map.
MO'l'IO~l: Cor.1. Adci..Ins, to approve the Conser1t Ca1endar
SECOND: Com. Szabo VOTE: Passed 5-0
P:JI;LI~ HEAHII:GS:
2. Jl.pplicat:ton 'f-'I'X-814 of HW & AS:JOCIA'J.1E.S :rnVESTXENT CO.: 'l'E:li'l'ATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP to subdivide ap~:Jl:'l:'Ximately l.15 ucres into 15 parcel~ consisting or 14 residential coneom1n1u parcels and one parcel to be held in ~~omr.aon ownership and
ENVIHONMENTAL HEVIEW: 1'he Env:tronmf:ntal Hev;.ew Committee
PC-451 Page 2 e PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -OCTOBER 8, 1984
recommends the s;rant:tng of a Nega~1ve Declaration. 'l"he subject
p~ is in a P (Planned Development with residential intent,. 4.4-12 dwelling~units per gross acre) between Imperial Avenue and Pasadena Avenue. First Hearing continued. Tentative City Council hearing date -OQtcber 15, 1984.
Director of Plannint and Development Sisk outlined the Staff Report and advised that the Use Permit had already been appr•oved.
MO'l1 ION: SECOND: VOTE:
Com. Adams, to close the Public Hearing Com. Szabo
"Passed
MOTION: Com. AdRms~ to grant a Negative Declaration SECOND: Com. Sorenson
5-0
VOTE: P.aeoed 5-0
MOTION: Com. Adams, to approve Application 7-TM-84, subject to Conditions 1-22, and th ~indings ot the Staff Hero.rt. SECOND: Com. Szabo
VO'l1E: Passed 5-0
'.Co be heard by City Council on October 15, 1984.
3, CI'.PY OF CUPEH'l'INO: PUDL:IC HEAHING to· co.rrnider an amendment to the CG (GcneraJ. Commercial) zoning distriot. First Hearing continued. Tentative City Council hearing date ~ November 5,.19~4.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan regretted that Staff had not
had nore time to develop criteria and work on definitions, but suegeated the Comm.1.saion review what they had and add to it if required. He asked for further Commission guidance on the issue of service stations selling convenience good5, since the intent was not clear.
Co~. Claudy advised tt.e Commission had requested an outright prohibition of the sale of liquor at service stations.
'l'he consensus of the Commission was that the ban should. exter1d to all zones.
It was established by City Attorney Kilian that 1t would be better to change all three ordinances involved to effect this than tc adopt a blanket ordinance.
Torn Gee, 22463 St. Andrews Avenue, had concerns about specialty food stores, such as ice-creon parlors,knd donut or cookie shops, whether they would be considered ao fast rood or full service
reEtaurants, since Section 4.1 escluded them, but there was no rlefinition later. He noted that most specialty food stores 1 !H'eferrecl comirercia.1 zone:e bt!cause o!' oase of operation, and thought t·::.~:.:,· t hould be exer.:pted from use permit requirements, sir.cc their ~)b. .. kine. needs were short-term; £t.1:so, in the past they had been \reat~d sryparately.
Com. McKenzie ~Jnde~ed if ~r. Gee could suggest a definition.
M~. Gee sugge~t d that a specialty tcod store was more limited in r~od produ~tion on the premises than a fast food restaurant, and .he d~finition could also include the reduced parking
requireim'!l'h i:>,, he thouf;ht.
I PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -OCTOBER 81 J.984
Com. Szabo was concerned about the number of ttse ·permits that could be required; increasing the load on 3tat.t", the Cc1mmia-aion and City Council. He wanted the criteria to b~ baaed on proximity to residential areas and operating hours, rather than the class of business, as the former were eas1iy defin-able and addreaaeO. the problems, he thought.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan pointed out that the suggested criteria would not address the traffic and po11oe issues that could be involved.
In discuesion, tlle C'.?mm1asion decided that them had to be clear derinltio~s, and that certain operations could not be singled out, because of discrimination. Traffic was found to be hard to address. Whether all established businesses · affected should have to come in for a Use ~ermit or be abated was also discussed.
Com. Adams established that; Sta.ff' did not have an estimate of the.• number of' use permits that would be required, but felt as the "fill-in" space left in the City was not great, they would not eet deluged, and he did not want to relinquish use permitticontrols., even on toe-cream parlors and such, since the use pc:rmit was u valuable tool.
Com. Clnudy suggested that a separate clasb could be develope for specialty food stores.
City Attorney Kilian commented that Stat'!' was constantly having to interpret definitions that were spec1.fic in nature.
Com. Claudy wondered if j,t was the Commission's wish to have existing uses come in for a permit or be abated.
City Attorney Kilian felt this was a sien1f1cant decisipn that should be referred to City Counnil to express their wishes.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan reminded the Commission that
the~r had asked Staff also to work on the Non-conforming Use Ordinance, because of the Mulligans problem, so that existing non-conforming use3 would have to file i'or a use permit. H.c; wanted to be adviaed if' there was a chanse in this decision* Jn reµ;ard to the CG ordinance, he had developed some ideas while listening t.otthe Commission, on the use of a matrix to narrow down the criteria for control; 1.e., where there had been certain proble~s, for instance. He would have something prepared along those lines for the next Meeting, he said.
Com. Szabo wanted Staff also to estimate how ~any use permits would be required to make the new Ordinance retroactive.
MOTION: Con.Adams, to continue the Public Hearing to the Meeting of October 22, 1984 SECOND: Com. Sorenson
VOTE: P<>.8 sed 5-·0
PC-451 P.age 3
PC-451 .ge lj
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -OCTOBER 8, 1984
4. Application 13-~'M-84 o~ THE ALDEN COMPANY (HOO GEE HOM): TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP to subd1Vide approximately 6.7 acres into 31 parcels ranging in aize from 6Jooo sq. ft. to approximately 9,900 sq. ft. and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmenta.1 Review Comr.iittee recommends the granting of a. Negative Declnration. The sub;Ject pr~~; is l<Hiated between the termimis of' September Drive and November D:r'ive, a;,.'proxi-mately 800 £t. west of Stelling Road in a RJ.-6 (Reside>.'t1a1 Single-family,, 6,000 r>q. ft. minimum lot 3izeJ zoning d:i.."J\':rict. F1rat Hearing. Tentative Ci,y Council hearing date -Oct~ber 15, 1984.
Director of Planning· and Development Sisk rev;htwed the Sta.ft Report, giving tbe history of the zon1ngJ and advising that, apart from a small agricultural access to Stelling Road~ the only access at the present time waa September Driv~ oft · . McClellan Hoact,. thcueh he ment1on~d a tvtui"'e .frontage road to State Highway H5, which would be a circuitous neighborhood route.
'rhe Commission d1scusaec.1 lot 32.& which as a condition of approval haQ been added to lot 31 for reasons of maintenance, and it wao aeaumed that the lot would probably be sold by the owner of lot 31 to the developer ot: land to the east, when this eventually took place.'
Questioned by Com. Sorenson o~ the emergency access, Director of Planning and Development Sisk advised that Cdntral Fire Diabrict had reviewed the application and were satisfied.
'!R ~ones, ~The Alden Company, San Mateo. gave the history
ot•~the application and confi:mned a problem that Com. Adams had seen on lot 19, in that it was not correctly drawn, and would be amended. He agreed with Staff's ausgcstions on lot 32.
Clara Perusina, 10909 South Stelling Road, previous owner of the proprty, eucgested she and her husband should buy back lat 32. She advised that they had no intention of developing the land to the east, which they wanted for their family. She objected to a planned street in the middle of their pr6perty, she said.
Com. Claudy aRsured Mrs. Perusina that there would not be a 3t..t."etJ.'.12." on tl-.eir proi:pe::nt,y unless and until they desired it, ar1<~
sugeeste~ Mr. Jones could talk to Mrs. Penusina regarding the sale of lot. 32.
Carlton :>le Mahon. 1030 November D:t•i ve,, whose• property ba.c!ked up to the development, was concerned about fencing, since his lot WRS 6 I't, higher.
Mr. Jones confirmed that they could it'1stal new fencine, 6' ft. hip;h on r·:r. McMahon 1 s side, und that they could .. ,.,rk with the
nei~hbors on this issue. He added that they would take care of any drainage proble~s.
Ray Barks. 7890 Fiesta Lane, wanted an ease~cnt for the con~truct1on equipment along Highway 85 land, since September Drive, already congested, ~would otherwi'oe be 1mpasf!iab1e. He brought up the problem of the single access and thought the added trips would be a burden. 'l'hey needr:.d traffic controla, he said, since the area wan dangerous, especially for children.
PLANNING COMMISSION MUlU'l1ES -OCTOBER 8, 1984
Jarl Whitner, October Way, relt there should be anothe~ access before the proje-('it was built, and suggested an easement along Fiesta and Highway 85.
Com. Claudy explained that the Commiasion could not require an easement across someone else's property.
Bill Lauer, 858 September Drive~ supported Mr. Barks and Mr. Whitner.
Eugen~ A. Raez, 850 September Drive,added that land tor ~ another access road should be found and bought at this time.
MOTJlON:: Com. Adams, to close the Publtc Hearlne; SECOND: Com. Szabo VOTE: Passed 5-0
Com. Adams suegee~ed that a~ easement be requirftg~ ~£ possible, c.uring t.he construction phase~ but felt t,hat~ this was &11 that could be done.
The Commission discussed the concert of eminent do.ma.in, tut found it impractical here.
Th~ idea of signalisation was· d1sc1.iased with Assistant C:1.ty Engineer Whitten, who advised that an area t2affic survey could be completed tor City Council.
Questioned by Com. Adams, Mx•. Jones confirmed that they had not had any discuasionB with the previous owners about lot 32, but had understood they were not interested in developing their land at present.
MO'l'ION:
SECOND: vorrE:
Com. Szab;, to recommend the granting ot a Negative Declaration.
Com. Adame' Passed 5-0
It was deuided to mo1.Ufy Condition 20 to permit resale to the previous t$:t>~"owner and also to add a new Condition 21, reflecting that construction easeoent rights to lot 32 be retained during construction. ·
Il'i0 1rION:
SECOND:
VO'l~E:
Com. Adams, to recommend approval of Application
13-TM-84~ s~bject to Conditions l-19; Condition 20 modified to reflect.the repurchase of parcel 32; Condition 21 ad1ed that the constru~t1on phase use' the easement for its construction eqaipment; · subject to the f1ndlnes of the Staff Report and subconclusions of the Hearing.
Com. Szabo Passed 5-0
To be heard by City Counc!l on October t5, 1984.
6. Applioat:~on c-Z-8L1 ot ,,.YA~:-PING LILY CHANG: REZONING two parcels which are eact .2~ acres (net) fron R3 (Res1den-tlal Multiple Par::ily) tc ;~2 (ilc-s~.dential Duplex) zone or whatever zone may be dec~eJ appropriate by the Planning
i?C-l!51 Page 5
PC-451 Page 6 e· f"LANN.ING ·COMMISSI·JN MINUTES -OCTOBEH. 8» 1,984
>; ,: ~ , ::~1(:~ /: ,c .' I , , , ,
~ ·_ ' f : '
Commi.ssion to allow construction of t;wo residential duplex bu:.tldJ.ngs ('totaJ. of four uni.ts). ENVIROM1ENTAL REVIEW: .'l'he EnviI'cmmental Revi.,w Committee recommendfl the granting 01~ a Negative Declaration. The subject propePl1es Rre located at the corner of Parl<: Circle Dt•i ve approximately 400 ft. north of Alves Drive. First Hear1~g. Tentative City Council hearing date -November 5, 1984. ·
Director of Flannihe ~nd Development Sisk gave the history of the two vacant lots and described them a~ of an appropriate size for duplex development.
Jyan-Ping Lily Chang, the applicant, described the acquisition of the apartment complex by a croup who had improved, remodelled end sold the apa~tments individuall:. These two lots, previously used for recreation, but allowed to fall into disrepair, had been left; they were vacant and a neighborhood nuisance, she said. 3he described the proposed buildings as compatible with the
nf:!lg.hborhood.
Com. Adams established that the cons1;ruction wp,tQ.i}:'be tiqo-story in kc~ping with the area.
MOTION: Com. Adams, to close the Public Hearing SECOND: Com. McKenzie V0TE: P~ssed 5-0
Com. Adams co:nmented that th±B'll'WS.B a reviv~d useage of a problem
propcvj;y.
Com. McKenzie established that there was plenty of open space nearby.
MO'rION: Com. Adams, to recommend the granting of a Nee;ative Declaration.
SE Cr.HD: Com. Mcifonz ie VOTE: Passed 5-0
MOTION: Com. Adams, to recommend approval of Application 8-Z-84, subject to the findings of the Staff Report and the Hearing. SECOND: Com. McKenzie VOTE: Passed 5-0
To be heard by City Council on November 5, 1984.
BREAK: 9:15 p.m. to 9:25 p.me
7, Application l-V-84 of ROBERT FISHER: VARIANCE from Section 84.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a 7 ft. side yard setback for an existinc residence where a 20 ft. setback is required. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is categorically exempt; hence, no action is required. The subject property is located at 10699 Randy Lane ~pproximately,200 ft. south of Lucille Avenue in an Al-43 (Agricultural·-ResidentialJ 43,, 000 sq. ft. mibimum lot size) zoning district. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hear1nc date -October 15, 1984.
Assistant Plannine Director Cowan reviewe~ the Staff Report~ G1Vins ~he history of the Al-43 zoning 1n the neighborhood, and the backeround of the present request and the additions to the
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -OCTOBEa 8, 1984
house, and advised that Staff had received m~ch input from the neighborhood. The owner had agreed to abate the existing apartmenta and bring the house up to code, he said, and the apr.., 1.ca:':ion had been conditioned to ensure abatement. He pointe: ·:. -~ ·: that many o:t: the setbacks in the area were 1nconsi::it -r ·. {it~1 the zoning. and felt that 7 .f't. was riot an unreasonab. setback requirement in the c1rcumatanoes.
Com. Claudy asked, for the record, it, had the addition had a permit at the time it was constructed 1 it could
le~ully have been built with a 7 ft. setback.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan was not sure, since Staff had not had time to looK into the County records, bbt the County had approved buildings in the area with a whole range of setbacks, so he ~elt it waa probable.
Robert Fisher, 1167 Di Napoli DriveJ clarified that members of his family had been living in the apartments. He described his projected remodelling to get the house up to standard and make it markef.lable /1 and answered Commissioners' quest tons c1n the purchase and condition or the proprty and alterations that had been made by himsel.r and by others. He confdlrmed that h±s time-frame for completing the project was six months from receiving a permit, weather permitting.
Com. Claudy, with advice from City Attorney Kilian, informed the audience that the City did not have an ordinance limiting the number ot people living ln a dwelling, and a.lso that the State prohibited regulation based o~ blood line. ·
Ed Auch, 10713 Randy Lanf,~ took a stand~up vote of those in favor and those against the granting of the variance; the large majority were against.
Ted Boskupski, 10685 Randy Lane, submitted a petition ~1gned
by 30 residents requesting denial, and commented that he believed the setback mentioned was not 7 ft. bu: 5ft. 10 in. He drew attention to a letter send on April 3, 1984 by the City to Mr. F18her addressing code violations, and he said he believed that there had been no re1nspection. He listed violations of the building code that be belie~edJ together with storage or junk and flama.bles, made the property a neighborhood safety hazard. He also thought the raised roof proposed would not be in keeping wibh the neighborhood.
Com. Claudy pointed out that if the variance was approved, the property would meet code8.
Vincent F. Kemble, 10601 Larry Way, wanted preservation of th neir;hborhood,, and mentioned his letter to the Commission,, in which he h&d requested denial. He noted that the house had gradually deteriorated over the years, and did not have conI'idence that M~. Fisher would restore it pr~perly. He . wanted to see the hou~e brought up to code and a restriction from rental on a commercial basis.
Assistant Planninc Director Cowan advised on follow-up inspections since t;he April 3, 1984 letter,,. and conf:f.rmed
PC-451 Page 1
PC-451 Page 8 PI,ANN!NCJ COfrtMISSION1 MINUTES -OC';l10BER 8 » 1984 .
that lif'e-threateni1').g issues had been resolved, bu.t that some structural problems were awaiting ~he outcome of the·variance issue.
City Attorn~y Kilian, ~ue~tioned by Com. Szabo, stated that !n a residential zone it was not i1le3al to rent out up to twc rooms, but that separate kitchen facilities were not allowed.
La~ra Auch, 10713 Randy Lane, had spoken with the original owner, and gave a history of the illegal unit and shut-downs by the City. 3he ad~dd that Mr. Fisher had added a third unit, and feared that if the variance was granted, the units would be miintained; she wanted them abated.
Com. Claudy established with Staff that although there ~as a further back sectir.m of the hcuse w1 thout a. building permit,, a permit for tM.s could be issued by bringing ~.t up to code.
Adeline Marchesa, 10572 Randy Lane, said conditions at the res-idence were so bad that Mr. Fisher did not live there. She wanted the addition torn down.
Siemar Hortman, 10643 Larry Way, wanted the Con~ission to consider that, even though setbacks of 20 ft. had not been observed in the neighborhood, buildings were arranged for mutual privacy, but this one was not.
Ed Auch felt there was much contradictory evidence in this matter, and did not feel easy that Mr. Fisher .e gran•ed a variance,, especially with the safety haza~ds existing. He pointed out the proxzbnity of the Fis:ner house to his own, and added tl"lat .Cor privacy, he i~ad had to plant Italian· cyp:ress along the side fence when he had taken out shrubbery for fence maintenance.
Bob Mensey, Randy Lane~ felt that Mr. Fisher should have to arcept the responsibility of a house built without proper · perr.iits, especially sine~ he had not paid market price, he said. Mr. Fisher's record did not support the supposition ~ at he would ev:i.ct the tenants, and e·1erything bu:llt without,; permits should be torn down, he felt.
Ted Doskupsk1 added that once the property was brought back to ita original condition, Mr. Fioher could then go through the variance p~ocedure.
;.Jr. Fisher, called on b;y· Cor::. CJ..audy for his comr:wnts,.-said. that the Duilclin;~~ Depar•t:11ent had inspecteC. the ppo;.~it',Z< three or" ;four ti~es since April, and that safety problems had been eliminated. He corrected the allep;ation 0f' the price f'or ·. which he had bought the house, com!":lentine; that the price paid was fair market value at the tj.mc. :re knew that the construction of th~ hous~ Aection in question occurred prior to 1961, he said, because the previous owner bad bought it then, and he had not constructed it.
Com. Szabo asked Mr. F1Bher for clarirication of the allegation that the drawing did not reflect true dimenoions.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -OCTOBER
Mr. Fisher sa1d he had sot the d1mena1ons off an old sheet, and had not physicaly checked them.
City Attorney Kilian adv!sed that a few inches difte~cnce could be allowed if the variance waa approv•d as proposedp but that oth~fvise, there could be a continuance, to get the right measurements, or approval down to 5 ft. 10 in. if the Commission desired.
r~uestioned by Com. Adam~, Mr. Fisher advised tha.t all electrical work, apart fPom a couple of small details, had been completed, and heaters and wall furnaces removed fiom service. He indicated on the drawing where r~r~ed air. heat would be installed, since this was not shtrwn.
Aseistci.nt Planning Director Cowan confi:rrmed that the BuB:C,:1.ne; Inspector was satisfied with the rate of compliance, and that
furt~er work hing'd on the var~ance decisio~. ·
Sam Marchese J 10572 Handy Lane, suspected :~ slip-shod operation, when there was nc indication or heating on the plans, and wanted the variance denied.
Ted Boskupski quoted tho Revenue and Taxation Bode of March 1, 1977 to prove that the dimens!ons of Nr. Ftsher's lot were different than stated.
City Attorney Kilian advised that the assessor's parcel dimensions were not legal; that legal descriptions were contained in title reports.
Dottie Fisher, 10699 Randy Lane, resident at the house in
q~~stion, stated that the neighbors' testimony was based on mislea.dine; assumptions. Mr. Fishc:rhad complied so t'ar, and she knew he would continue to comply~ she said. She pointed out that Mr. Auch still had plenty of privacy in that he stil had a thick hedge next to the fence. Mr. Fisher just wanted to improve the house legally, and property values would go up, she said.
MOTION: Com. Sz~bo, to close the Public Hearing SECOND: Com. McKenzie VOTE: Passed 5-0
'rhe Coimnission discussed continuance, but the consensus w~s for inuneJtate action.
Com. Adams could not s~e that all three conditions requir~d to be found were met.
Con. Szabo felt the variance was reasonable, and th~ ~he problems with the property would cease if the variance was eranted.
Corn. Sorenson specifically could not acree with the third condition.
Corn. McKenzie felt the problems were not ~elated to the · variance, and therefore thought it appropriate.
Com. Claudy had found that the first two conditions could not be met.
).
~ , ·'
. . ' .
PC-451 Page 10 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -OCTOBER 8, 1984
MO'I'ION: SE<.:OND: Com. Adams, to deny Application 1-V-81i Com. Sorenson VOTE: Passed 3-2 (Coma. KcKinz1~ and Szabo voting against the motion)
To be heard by City Council on October 15, 1984.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
8. Application 4-U-83 of CARL N. SWENSON, CO.J INC. (ITSUE UENAKA): Minor Amendment to incorporate accountine; system for F:oor Area Ratio (FAR) Transfers and Traffic Intensity Perf6r-mance Standard (TRIPS) Transrers.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan explained the concept of locking in TRIPS aKa FARS, artd advised that t~purpose of the Hearing was to acknowledge that the TRIPS and FARS had been transferred and to modiry the conditions or app~ov&l to aocom-modat e them. When the applicant obtained the balance required, the p~ocess would be repeated: he explained.
Douglas E. Sugimotor Carl Swenson Development Company, questioned by Com. Adams, adv1zed that if they did not ~et the r~maining 10,000 sq. ft. they would change the plans, but they were confident of doing so, though it was going to take time for people to feel comfortable with the concept of selling TRIPS and FARS, he said.
f.;01 1ION: Com. Adams, to adopt a Minute Order that the Pla;1n:.tne .Cor.imission had approved TRIP and FAR transfers so far SECOND: Com. .Sorenson VOTE: Passed , 5-0
9. Appoir•tment for Environmental Review Comm1 ttee (ERC) and DeJow Market Rate (BMR) Surcorn.~ittee.
MO'rION:
SE(;QND:
Com. Adams,, to elect Com. Szabo t.o the EMR Suboommittee Com. McKenzie VO'l'E: Passed 5-0
~·IOTIO!~: Con. Adams, tc elect Com. McKenzie to the ERC SECOND: Com. Sorenson VOTE: Passed 5-0
HEPOHT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
City Attorney Kilian advised that the owner ?f Behta Brothers had been cited.
RSPOHT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
A DJ 0 UR!JViEti'I' 11:20 p.m.
Attest 12··-' ,-:-:;? ··~·····' -··· ---~·-...... : ... ·-.·;2P'.Lf' ,.. "
. C:tr,; (· .~..?·. ·--..;...;<:.--, . City clerk
Approve: